The Problem of Hell
Since I am going to be working for a Christian organization in Africa (which may or may not involve evangelism) I want to understand my own faith before teaching it to others. This is my attempt to think through the "problem of hell", my biggest struggle with Christian beliefs. If you're not into theology, this post might not be for you. And yes, it's too long.
Disclaimers: Biblical Inerrancy is not the topic of this post. I am going to assume the Bible is the Word of God and thus tells the truth. However, is prone to drastic mistranlation by it's incredibly errant readers, including myself. If you expect a neat solution to the problem of hell, you're reading the wrong blog.
The Problem of Hell can be summed up as "how can a loving God punish human beings for ever?" Since the Bible seems to teaches both God's omnibenevolence (total goodness) and His sending people to hell, this creates a problem for people such as myself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_hell)
I freely accept that neither my understanding nor my morality is perfect. I disagree the Bible about a lot of things, and realize that I am probably wrong. For me, the problem I have with hell becomes worse a) the more torturous hell is and b) the more difficult it is to avoid hell. While I will focus on b), there is lots written on a).
While the conservative view of hell has people literally burning forever, modern theology tends to teach hell as seperation from God, bringing emotional pain, rather than physical torture. J.P. Morland argues "the punishment of hell is seperation from God, bringing shame, anguish, and regret... so it is punishment, but it's also the natural consequence of a lfie that has been lived in a certain direction." I don't feel qualified to comment on the nature of hell, but I do find it interesting that the Bible describes hell as both a "lake of fire" and as "darkness" which makes it hard to take both literally. However, as C.S. Lewis points out, "metaphorical" flames can be as bad as real ones. The Bible also seems to state that in the afterlife, we will be punished or rewarded in proportion to our deeds (see Matt 11:20-24 or Revelation 20:12-13). Thus, someone like Stalin might be expeccted to suffer more in hell than a run-of-the-mill atheist.
On to point b: does everyone really get a fair chance to avoid hell?
Conservative Christianity argues that God is justified in sending people to hell because people break God's perfect laws. However, because God is merciful, Jesus was punished instead through crucifiction. Thus God can accept people into heaven. This is pretty basic Christian theology, if that is not your strong point read here. (http://www.new-testament-christian.com/salvation.html), or go to the source and read the book of Romans and the Gospel of John in the Bible. The trick, of course is that we have to "accept Jesus" to be saved. Statistically, 1/6th of the world is Christian. I'm sure God uses different numbers, but these statistics do point out that a hell of a lot of people have not "accepted Jesus". Are they all screwed?
This seems unfair for the following reasons:
a) Some people have no chance to accept Jesus because they are too young, or mentally deficient, to choose Him.
b) Some people that do hear about Jesus in circumstances not conducive to faith. It is difficult to expect, say, a Muslim during the Crusades to feel affection for the Christian God.
c) Some people, after much thought, can not believe in Jesus for whatever reason. They are honest non-believers.
A conservative might argue that God is not obliged to save anyone, and that hell is actually a fair fate for people. (A Calvinist might argue that God has already pre-picked people for heaven or hell.) This is a Biblical belief, certainly- that is, you ignore all the verses about God's infinite love and mercy and justice. (Or if you have a radically different concept of justice than I have. Lots of people do. A Christian soldier fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, might find it totally just that a devout Muslim go to hell.)
So anyway, I don't want to believe the Conservative viewpoint (and I totally admit to being biased and emotional when it comes to the doctrine of hell). If I must believe in a God I think is unjust, this creates a big problem for me. Therefore, I look words of hope for the billions who die without being conventional Christians. And some of the loopholes I actually find convincing...
Universalism: this is the belief that everyone eventually ends up in heaven. Hell is either non-existent or non-permanent. A hell-less Christianity seems to me to be flat out anti-Biblical. I am intrigued by the idea of a temporary hell, meant to purify evil people until they are ready for heaven. However, I need to research more before commenting on this. So, for now, I will assume that the "hell is forever" verses in the Bible were correctly translated. The site http://www.savior-of-all.com/ for those interested in Universalism, argues they were not.
Age of Accountability: this belief suggests that people too young or handicapped to know Jesus properly will be saved by God's mercy anyway. Even hard-line convervatives often believe this. An AOA believer sites David's belief that he will see his child in heaven (2 Samuel 12: 23) , or Jesus' comments about little children, for example Mark 10:14-15 "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
Conscious Rejection: This suggests that people that go to hell consciously reject God. That is, they willfully and defiantly refuse God's grace, and, in effect, choose hell for themselves. C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce", as well as modern Catholic theology have variations of the CR belief. J.P. Moreland argues "If we fail over and over agin to live for the purpose for we were made.... the God will have absolutely no choice but to give us what we've asked for all along in our lives, which is seperation from him... that's hell."
Of course, there are a lot of people that don't reject Jesus out of spite- they just don't find Christianity convincing, or feel secure in their own religion, or never hear about Christ. A CR believer would thus argue either:
a) that, despite appearances, non-Christian DO willfully reject the faith. People who claim to be honestly unconvinced are liars who would rather sin than follow Jesus. (I'm sure some people fit this category, but find it hard to believe all non-Christians do.) As for people who never heard of Jesus, if they really are looking then He will reveal Himself through miraculous means. (http://www.brokenmasterpieces.com/archives/000347.html for example. ) I'm not sure what I think of the "miraculous revelation" idea. It's cool, but I doubt that it's widespread.
b) The earth is a battlefield for souls between the forces of good and evil. Sometimes the devil wins through deception. Matt 13:19 says "The seed sown on the path is the one who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it, and the evil one comes and steals away what was sown in his heart." However, the lack of understanding that allows the evil one to steal the seed is suggested earlier in the chapter to come from the willful hardening of one's heart. Perhaps God allows the devil to decieve those who "want" to be decieved? I find it hard to believe a God willing to die for a human salvation would let billions go to Hell as collateral damage, unless they precipitated it by their own free will.
c) perhaps people are judged "based on the light that is shown them." It is pretty clear Biblically that people can be condemmned withou hearing about Jesus (Romans 10), but can they be saved? According to the "light shown them" belief, people who don't hear about Jesus are judged based on their response to God shown through the natural world and their conscience (and- in my personal heretical view- perhaps their own religion). Thus they are saved or condemned based their response to what they have. The book of Romans 2 suggests such a theology, epsecially veses 7-8 and 14-16.
Romans 14-16: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."
Romans 7-8: "to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation."
To me, these verses strongly suggests a judgement the possiblility of salvation, based on a response to one's own conscience. "Seeking for glory" isn't exactly a convential Christianity, but it is the honest desire to please God.
What response, exactly, is acceptable for a God who saves people through "faith in Christ"? A common answer (and perhaps the only possible one) is "we do not know and can only trust in God's mercy and fairness... We do know that the tribesman will have a better chance if he is told about Christ, so let's do that and leave the rest to God."
The Bible is rarely as clear-cut as systematic theology. I personally love the "light shown them" idea, and there is a bunch of verses that can be used to support it. Below are some.
A) The Jesus of the 1st 3 gospels, who talks a lot about hell, seems to point to avoiding evil deeds and doing good deeds as a basis for salvation or condemnation, instead of intellectual belief. (Matt 5:29, 5:30, Mark 9:43-47, Matt 31: 41-43 among many). His parable of the "sheep and the goats" (Matt 21: 35-46) suggests the way we treat our neighbor is what we are judged on. The parable of the ungrateful servant (Matt 18: 21-35) suggests God's forgiveness depends on our own. Also, Jesus tells several people that they will be judged much more harshly, having seen Him and His miracles face to face, then others whose sin will not be counted against them because of their lack of knowledge. (Matt 11: 20-24). These Gospels suggest, to me, that people who do not know a lot about Christ can still show love to their neighbor, obey their conscience, and forgive others and thus please God. (Yes, I realize this poses another problem, since I believe that I AM assured of heaven through my belief.)
B) The Bible says that God loves everyone and wants them in heaven.If God wants everyone to go to heaven, why would he create people with no chance to do so? A sampling of verses, some of which seem downright Universalist:
1 Tim 2:4 [God] will have all men to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the truth
1 Tim 4:9-11 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance- and for this we labor and strive- that we put our hope in the Living God, who is the Savior of all men, but especially those who believe.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
C) Hebrews 11, the ultimate "by Faith" chapter, mentions a bunch of people who have never heard of Christ, because they were born before Him. Nor were they especially moral. Yet the Bible suggests they went to heaven. Abrhaham came from a pagan culture. Joshua was a brutal warlord (though a God-sanctioned one.) Rahab was a Caananite prostitue. Samson was an egotistical psychopath whose big act of faith was a cry for vengenace, which allowed him to kill thousands. Yet all these, not one of them Christians, are commended for their faith. Jesus is called the "author and perfector" of our faith, right after a bunch of people are listed for their faith... but they didn't know Jesus! Interesting. Could it be that God looks at our hearts, not our knowledge?
Moreland argues "[people] don't consciously reject heaven and choose to go to hell instead. But they do choose not to care about the kinds of values present in heaven every day." C.S. Lewis thinks "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way." "
D) The book of Jonah in the Bible is an interesting case study, though it's not about the afterlife. It's about God sending Jonah to Ninevah, the Capital of Assyria, to warn them that God is going to destroy Ninevah for it's people evil deed.
The first interesting thing I find is that when Jonah is on the ship, the pagan sailors who have many gods, instinctively respond with humility and obedience to the real God despite their lack of knowledge. Jonah, who hears God's voice personally and has no reason to doubt His existence is the disobedient one.
Eventually, Jonah gets to Ninevah and preaches his message of destruction. And the Ninevites, shockingly, repent! They go around "giving up their evil ways" and begging for God's mercy. (Which God? Assyrians hardly have the same concept of God as Jonah.) And God shows mercy, as he often did to the Old Testament Jews when they repented. Jonah, however is angry. He wants to see fireworks. God tells him "Ninevah has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who can not tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" The mercy is given in response to an honest desire for forgiveness, not knowledge of correct doctrine.
E) Finally, and this is more a philosophical than a scriptural argument, if correct doctrine is necessary to go to heaven, we run into a problem of degree.
Let us propose, for example, that C.S. Lewis got Christianity 100% correct. (Lewis is a good example because he was well aware that he did not.) C.S. Lewis understands the Bible, and Christian theology, as well as is humanly possible. Thus his faith is not only saving, it is also "correct."
Few people would argue that anyone who disagrees with C.S. Lewis is going to hell (least of all Lewis himself.) John Calvin, Martin Luther, Mother Theresa, Philip Yancey, Billy Graham and so on... Most Christians would agree that, dispite their substantial doctrinal differences, they are all saved. Hang on! Mother Theresa? She's Catholic... she believes stuff that (I think) is flat out contra-Biblical! Yes her faith still saves her. How far can we go with this? Is the genuine, God-centered faith of the Jehova's witness enough to save him, while the Mormon goes to hell? How about Ghandi, who lived an amazing life based on Jesus' teachings but remained a Hindu? How abouta a devout Muslim in the heart of India where the Gospel rarely penetrates? A modern person who is "spirtual but not religious"?
I don't pretend to know where, or if, God "draws the line". It seems to me, however, that a fair and loving God would look at the heart of each individual person more than their mind. It a person genuinely submits to God (as they see him) and throws themselves on the mercy of God (as they understand Him) will he refuse them and send them to Hell? I don't know... I don't pretend to know... but I sure hope not. After researching for this blog post, I have found enough Biblical reasons to keep hoping.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that many ideas of mine were taken from the following sources (in fact, very little of this post is my own ideas):
http://www.danhickerson.net/Non_Christians.html
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0302fea3.asp
Philip Yancey. I've forgotton the book names but remember the ideas. Sorry, Philip.
C.S. Lewis. The Great Divorce and The Last Battle
Lee Strobel: The Case for Faith. His interview with J.P. Moreland is about the problem of hell.
http://www.twentyfeet.blogspot.com/. My good friend Jacob always writes about stuff like this and I steal ideas from him liberally.
God. The Bible. (I've always wanted to write that.)
13 comments:
It is funny how the concept of "Grace" works into all of this.
I understand how the theory of God judging those who are not Christian upon their good deeds could work. How can someone go to Hell who does the work of the Lord without actually calling it so?
But what about Christians who proclaim to be but do not act as God would want them to? While they live a life struggling with sin (as we all do) and do not do a fraction of what other religious or secular people take part in to help others. Does this mean they get to go to Heaven just because they believe in God?
The concept of Grace would say if you repent truly in your heart then you do get to go to heaven no matter what. For example, a man/woman could live a life full of sin and selfish acts but on his/her deathbed accept Christ and truly repend. Does that mean Christians are just priviliged by God, even if they do not act for the majority of their lives as God wants? It seems as though those who work and struggle and try to do the right and good thing (according to their own moral code) are afforded the same treatment as those who are given the gift of grace. It seems hardly fair. But I guess grace is not meant to be fair but a gift from God.
I think it is important to understand the big ideas in the Bible (things like heaven and hell). Sometimes people get lost debating and arguing about the small complexities. I can imagine God looking down and screaming "Hello!! It is not about the footnotes but the big picture that is important. I never asked you to spread the word about head coverings but about my love and gift that I am giving"
No wonder non-Christians get frustrated and give up on us. I find it hard to believe that someone would reject what God is and stands for. It seems a lot easier to reject the hypocrisy and lack of love that some of God's people tend to show to others.
Yes, the problem of Hell seems monstrously unfair.. hence my wrestling with it in the first place.
You are right that Grace is not meant to be fair. I'm not upset that a death-bed confession gets someone into heaven- I'm glad they get the chance. What worries me is those who get no chance whatsoever- if conservative Christianity is right, and knowledge of Jesus by name is needed to get to heaven. Hence, I want to believe that God, in some mysterious way, allows those people to respond to grace through their own understanding.
I totally agree with your paragraph about "little things". Next to the problem of hell (which you seem to agree IS important) my biggest problem with Christianity is the cruelty and pettyness that many Christians show to those who think differently.
Good stuff, FM. I liked point E especially. I just listened to a sermon by Rob Bell on hell, which you can download here. It's about 45 minutes long, but pretty good. He talks about the meanings of the three words that are translated as "hell" in the Bible, and where and how they're used. It got me thinking, so I did a couple of quick word searches. A few things jumped out at me:
The word "hell" appears 14 times in the NT (about 7 unique uses), whereas "save" or "salvation" occur about 130 times. There seems to be no mention of hell as a punishment for wrong beliefs, in fact, I'd say that every usage is in the context of sin. My initial feeling about the 10-to-1-ish ratio of "salvation" to "hell" is that "believing in Jesus" (another term I think we grossly misunderstand) may not be primarily about escaping the eternal wrath of God. Crazy, I know. Of course I'd like to study this more before forming any actual opinions on the matter.
Thanks Jacob, I shall listen to the sermon soon.
I also was struck during my Bible readings that "Belief in Jesus" seems to have a far deeper, and more mysterious meaning that we seem to think. And there are good reasons to follow Jesus in this life regardless of heaven or hell. Also, I read a lot of verses claiming Jesus salvation of "mankind", not of a select few.
Also, I always thought that was salvation of non-Christians was a modern, liberal idea of those who discarded what the Bible said. Turns out that many traditional churches (Catholic and Orthodox, for example) as well as many early church leaders believed in broad salvation or even eventual universalism.
That said, here are some verses that DO seem to threaten hell for non-belief (though they say "condemned", not "sent to hell" and "disbelief" not "wrong belief".) Not sure how to deal with those:
John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son"
Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Good sermon frmo mr. Bell. He argues that Jesus' teachings on Hell relate to the "hell on earth" created when religous leaders (not unbelievers) do evil things. Pretty cool, though it doesn't adress "eternal destiny".
Ya, we get the idea that what our family or pastor believes is what the church (at least the true church) has believed since the beginning. This of course is untrue. And it's worth noting that hell itself is a concept that evolved in Hebrew society between the Testaments. The exact details of the afterlife are by no means spelled out in the Bible.
It seems to me that a hard-line exclusivist view of salvation naturally leads to a sort of obsession with hell, and I just don't see that obsession in the Bible. This is part of the reason I feel like we've got the wrong idea about salvation (or more precisely, about what salvation meant to the Biblical authors).
As far as belief goes (and I know many conservatives won't appreciate this reasoning) it seems to me like there's a big difference between rejecting Jesus when he's in the flesh, loving and healing and working miracles, and rejecting the Jesus offered in a church service or a tract. And I don't just mean that we get it wrong (although we do). I think you'd have to be pretty obstinate to scoff at a man who raises the dead before your eyes. Most of the New Testament - and the Old, for that matter - is written in the context of some of the most extraordinary miraculous events in history. Unbelief in these circumstances (within which, for the most part, both the authors and intended readers of the NT lived) is something quite different from the unbelief of a teen in a camp chapel, however accurate the preacher's doctrine may be.
I think for a lot of people, "believing in the Bible" means believing that nothing has changed since the first century (things like gender roles, the availability of miracles, even the definition of important words like "love" or "believe" or "hell"). I see this as a major misconception.
Jacob, I totally agree. i have little to add. I do find that, as a general rule, we tend to take Biblical statements made to certain individuals (if you, the pharisee, reject God after he does miraculous works and warns you, in person, to repent you will go to hell) and apply it to everyone. Some people would probably deem that necessary and approriate, though.
Also true.
After reading up on Universalism a bit (the type where the unsaved are punished after death but eventually saved as well) I realized I should have given it more thought in my original post. The following ideas arguments for Universalism are not my own.
1) Many Early Christians believed in eventual universal salvation, including church leaders.
2) Many Christians immediately associate "God saves" verses in the Bible withs "from hell" and "punishment/condemnation" verses with "to hell" although this is rarely, if ever, stated.
3) There are myriad Bible verses about God saving "the world" and "all nations" and "in Christ all are raised" "one day every knee will bow" and so on.
4) The Old Testament doesn't contain Hell at all (suprising if escaping hell is what faith is all about) and the new testament verses are misunderstood.
5) "Hell" in an English bible is translated from either "Gehenna", (a place where pagans sacrificed children turned garbage dump in Isreal) and from "Sheol/Hades", (the Jewish world of the dead).
Gehenna is not the called the punishment of unbelievers but of the willfully sinful by Jesus. Rob Bell argues that it suggests to the earthly consequences of evil deeds.
Sheol is destroyed in Revelation and can therefore not be eternal.
The Lake of Fire in Revelation is meant to be understood as a purifying fire, which punishes sin until the person is ready to repent. This may take ages, but not an eternity. The word "aion" describing this lake, translated "for ever" should really be translated "for an age".
Well, that's a real short summary. Here's one of many good web pages. http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/ifhellisreal.htm.
And no, I'm not yet convinced of Universalism, or of any other theory of hell.
Good thinking guys. This issue has crossed my mind once again, after finding out that someone who contributed such Christian ideology to our society and positively influenced me from early on in life was actually Jewish, not necessarily believing on Jesus, but believing in God.
Anyway, I was just reminded about the parable Jesus gave about the good Samaritan and how he asked who is the neighbor. Well, maybe in this context and discussion he would pose this question to us, who walked upright before God? He said the man who beat his chest and asked God for mercy was more righteous than the Pharisee.
Paul says that those Gentiles who do not know the law, but follow their conscience are right before God. (paraphrasing from memory of course).
I have also heard more than one story where someone was dying and in the 'inbetween" was given a chance to repent before the Lord. Not that that is a chance that anyone should take with the knowledge of Christ, but for those who do not know or do not have an opportunity, this is HOPE.
I have faith that I will see Mike Landon in heaven! God is merciful and he IS JUST!
Holy cow, annonymous, you dug deep into the archives... cool!
The reason I have such issues with the concept of hell is that a traditional (hell = eternal torment) understanding of hell seems to me so ridiculous that it makes it hard to believe in God's justice and mercy.
Fire-and-brimstone theology, is often pretty black and white. Get saved, as narrowly defined by certain prayers and you're in. Don't say it and you are out (in hell). Life is friggin' complex. There are textbook "born again" Christians, for sure, but there are also liberal Christians that don't really believe in hell, doubters who WANT to believe but struggle to, people with deep personal faith in God but not Jesus, people who have never heard of Jesus, and people who reject Christianity because the Christians they know do things that would nauseate Jesus. Life is not simple. I CAN NOT believe that God wants all these people to go to hell. That doesn't make sense to me.
I've always wondered about death bed confessions myself. Seems reasonable to ask God to forgive you, even if you weren't sure He existed, if you were about to die.
Finally, Jesus (in the synoptic gospels), where most of the Bible's hell teachings take place, are much less clearcut then our modern salvation theology. "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Give away your posessions." What? Not "pray the prayer of salvation"...
God, and salvation, are indeed complex, and if God is willing to die for people, I MUST believe he WANTS to accept them and will not let genuine ignorance get in the way.
xs7qWp Good article! Thanks!
UhgIFW Hello! Great blog you have! My greetings!
Post a Comment